Finding Every Species

And Then by Alien54 · 2003-01-12 17:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

put a patent on every single one for purposes of commercial exploitation

--
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"

Re:And Then by divide+overflow · 2003-01-12 18:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think it's possible that somebody wildly overestimated the scope of the project. Or wildly underestimated the resources that could be applied to it. Or both.

Many different factors caused the project to take less time than initially planned, not the least of which was clever algorythmic techniques to speed up the decoding process. All of them combined led to a quicker result.

As I understand it, the vast majority of pure research is being funded by private companies now. So even if that research is being done at universities-- which it is, largely-- it's being paid for with corporate dollars. Which, some people's opinions to the contrary, is not inherently a bad thing.

I believe you meant "basic" research rather than "pure" research. Basic research (as opposed to "applied" research) is "experimental and theoretical work undertaken primarily to acquire new knowledge without a specific application in view". There has been a general decline in spending on basic research by corporations in recent years due to the high cost and uncertainty of return on the investment, leading to the shift of basic research to universities. This has had good and bad effects on universities, who have benefited from the funds but have also found increasing limitations and restrictions placed upon them by their corporate sponsors. For example, there have been well documented reports of drug companies putting restrictions in grant contracts to public researchers preventing them from telling the public of any hazardous effects of their drugs, even when those same drugs are in current use by the public.

So their is no black or white answer to which is better, public or private research. Perhaps it is good to have both, just as it is good to have a multiplicity of competitors in a market economy. It may just help to keep everyone honest.
Re:And Then by alext · 2003-01-13 14:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

Hardly single handedly - all their sequence data was from public research.

And they didn't win - the public effort was described in Nature magazine, and the Celera one in Science, both on the week of 12th Feb 2001.

However, Celera's attempt to violate the international Bermuda agreement of 1996 and turn our own genes into proprietary information did act as a spur to the public effort. Thank goodness they were able to respond.

My own project... by spazoid12 · 2003-01-12 17:16 · Score: 5, Funny

...is to find and sample one of each of these tasty species within 20 years.

Shouldn't be too hard... by Quaoar · 2003-01-12 17:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

List of species known gets larger each year...

List of species that aren't extinct gets smaller each year...

The two numbers will eventually meet.

--
I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!

Re:Shouldn't be too hard... by goldspider · 2003-01-12 17:21 · Score: 3, Interesting

I've never bought this kind of statement. It's high on rhetoric and low on facts.

'Facts' like this that can neither be proven nor disproven are often used by people with an agenda.

--
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Re:Shouldn't be too hard... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · 2003-01-12 17:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

You forgot to take into account the rate of speciation. About which we basically know nothing. Lots of theory and fossil evidence, but as to the rate of speciation occurring today, we know nothing.

--

I write in my journal
Re:Shouldn't be too hard... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · 2003-01-12 18:00 · Score: 5, Interesting

It's a safe bet that the rate of speciation has gone down, though, given the shrinkage in available natural habitat.

Ah, quite the contrary. It's my (imperfect) understanding that the rate of speciation goes up when resources are limited, and goes down during times of plenty.

The theory is that differences in individuals aren't sufficient to lead to speciation until they become survival traits. In a lush environment, individuals with all sorts of different characteristics can be equally successful. But in a more constrained environment, different traits become survival factors, and individuals with specific survival traits will tend to interbreed, leading eventually to speciation.

To use a really simple example, imagine a grassland populated by browsing mammals. The population is stable, the food and water sources are plentiful, the predation is low. Now kill off all the grass. Most of the browsing mammals will die off immediately. Some of them will have the (probably recessive) trait of being able to eat something other than grass; tree bark, maybe. Those individuals will survive and interbreed. Another group of the browsers will have the recessive trait of being able to eat dead browser. Those will survive-- thrive, even, given all the handy dead browserbeast carcasses lying around-- and interbreed. Eventually the two varieties of ex-browsers will drift far enough apart that they can no longer breed to produce fertile offspring. They'll become different species.

That's the theory, anyway.

--

I write in my journal
Re:Shouldn't be too hard... by Bicoid · 2003-01-12 19:54 · Score: 5, Informative

Actually, it's more like this. Generally, the species is well evolved to its environment. Individuals in ALL extremes die regularly, so the only ones to survive and breed are those in the middle of the bell curve. This maintains that bell curve. However, a change in the environment suddenly occurs because we all know that the environment is not static. Suddenly, the individuals on one extreme are not dying out and the individuals on the other extreme are dying out much more. The morphospace that the species takes up then shifts until the individuals dying out on both extremes balance each other.

Also, remember that it's species, not individuals, that evolve. Individuals survive or don't survive. That is all.

--
If not all sentients are human, couldn't it be possible that not all humans are sentient either?
Re:Shouldn't be too hard... by Waffle+Iron · 2003-01-12 20:02 · Score: 4, Funny

You forgot to take into account the rate of speciation. About which we basically know nothing. Lots of theory and fossil evidence, but as to the rate of speciation occurring today, we know nothing.
That's right, there's need to worry about the possible extinction of tigers, elephants, orangutans or any other species. New species could be popping up to replace them even as we speak!
Just think of the menagerie of crazy, fantastic creatures that could wink into existence at any time. Maybe thinning out today's boring selection will accelerate the process. I was just thinking how cool it would be to have a purple pet flying unicorn; I might get one yet if one happens to materialize! Or maybe a dinosaur the size of a T. Rex, but with soft golden fur and a gentle disposition.
Re:Shouldn't be too hard... by f97tosc · 2003-01-12 20:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

You forgot to take into account the rate of speciation. About which we basically know nothing. Lots of theory and fossil evidence, but as to the rate of speciation occurring today, we know nothing.

Well, we know almost nothing about how speciation occurs, but one can make estimates of the rate. If there are 10 million species today, and almost all of them evolved within the last million years, then the rate is probably ten per year, give and take an order of magnitude.
This numbers also illustrate that new the number of new species are not really relevant within this time frame. If 100 or a 1000 or 10000 new species form within the next ten years is of little consequence to a project aiming to categorize 10 million species.
One caveot to all this is that in reality speciation is probably not linear but rather happens more like in bursts. To your point, that would indicate that if we are in the middle of such a burst (which I never have heard suggested, btw) then sure that could mess up our calculations.

Tor
Re:Shouldn't be too hard... by fucksl4shd0t · 2003-01-12 22:03 · Score: 5, Funny

In a lush environment, individuals with all sorts of different characteristics can be equally successful.
Thanks, dude. You've just explained to me why rock music has sucked so much since the early '90s.

--
Like what I said? You might like my music
Re:Shouldn't be too hard... by Waffle+Iron · 2003-01-13 06:45 · Score: 3, Informative

The problem, of course, is that no one has the foggiest idea of what a normal rate of extinction is.
You may not, talk radio hosts may not, but there are plenty of people who have spent their entire lives studying the field who do. I know you probably think that they're full of B.S. because their conclusions clash with your extreme anthropocentric world view, but your filter doesn't change objective reality.
iI just always get somewhat bemused when people hold the opinion that "nature" is the world in the absence of humanity, that humanity is not part of the natural world. If the lions eat all the zebras, that's nature. If human beings kill all the lions, that's not nature. Seems like a rather foolish viewpoint to me.
I could use that line of reasoning to justify any action whatsoever, because anything that I'm capable of doing is, by definition, just "natural". "Oh, that bomb I threw into the crowd was made of elements. It was a part of nature. I threw it, but I'm part of nature. Things like that just happen in nature; death is natural, after all. Anyway, nobody has any idea whether those people would have spontaneouldy dropped dead even if I hadn't thrown that bomb. There's just no way you can prove it isn't impossible!"
Re:Shouldn't be too hard... by dandelion_wine · 2003-01-13 08:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

Man. Ok, where to start.

You remember those breath-mint commercials? Trim looking woman is sucking away on one while telling you that it's only a few calories each, so you can work them off "walking, working... breathing " (wink, wink). Well, yes. True. Only a few calories. Except anyone who's seen someone order two diet specials knows that it's not a few calories. It's a few more calories. In the same way that people who say "No one can make a difference in pollution -- it's too big a problem" forgets that it was a lot of individuals who made the problem in the first place. Everyone adding their bit.

So yes, Pinatubo did massive ozone damage. So do flatulent cows (ha ha). And forests need to burn down every now and again. But there's a reason there wasn't an ozone problem until recently! There's a reason we hadn't run out of cod until recently (even though we've had seals, supposedly the culprit, a good long while). There are natural checks and balances that we humans are successfully overcoming. I was in Southeast Asia not long ago doing, among other things, a little reef research (I was just an assistant). Well, turns out that most of the reef damage in the area was caused by tropical storms. Hey, great. Good to hear. Of course, there was a whack of damage caused by fishermen using nets, poorly placed anchors, and cyanide, amongst other things. There was also a lot of damage from snorkelers, many of whom (heh) could not swim, and felt the need to stand on the coral where possible. There was also the dedicated work of the conservationists who, in trying to kill every crown-of-thorns starfish (that destroys reef) either created many more in some cases, or destroyed reef while destroying the starfish. All not good. Of course, again, the storm did the most damage. But on its own that storm damaged reef might recover given time. But you know, add all those things together and that section of reef was a goner. Natural processes at that point were exacerbating the situation (proliferation of those c.o.t. starfish and sea urchins, for example, both likely due to different human-added pollutants).

So, yes, I like to knock people's delusions of grandeur as much as anyone, and if Phil down the street comes out tearing his shirt off, screaming in guilt, "It was me! Me! I destroyed the ozone layer" I'll be the first to use that handy label. But collectively? Yes, absolutely. We're fucking the planet six ways from Sunday.
Re:Shouldn't be too hard... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · 2003-01-13 18:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

Have we even scientifically defined the concept of "species"?

I thought we had, and said as much in another post in this thread, but I was corrected. It seems like the idea of a species is a nebulous one at best, and at worst downright nonsensical.

Besides, upon further reflection, wouldn't any project like this necessarily run up against a sort of Heisenberg effect? In order to be absolutely certain that you have catalogued every species on the planet, you have to examine every organism on the planet. Single-celled organisms, too. And examining a single-celled organism on the genetic level would necessarily result in the destruction of that organism. Practically speaking, this would happen with any microscopic organism; we simply can't learn about them without squishing them to see what goo comes out.

So carried to its natural conclusion, a project like this would would mean absolute genocide for untold teeming billions of microscopic and single-celled organisms.

Wish I'd thought to post this a few days ago. Surely it would have been good for an "insightful" mod point or two. ;-)

--

I write in my journal

And... by Noodleroni · 2003-01-12 17:17 · Score: 4, Funny

And start out by figuring out which species CmdrTaco, Hemos, and CowboyNeal are.

--
Esse quam vederi.

That doesn't sound possible by spooje · 2003-01-12 17:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

Is that even theoretically possible? Since new species are always evolving wouldn't there always be new species to name?

--
Tea and kung-fu. Life is good. Rising Phoenix

Re:That doesn't sound possible by looseBits · 2003-01-12 17:47 · Score: 3, Interesting

Well, over the coarse of 25 years, perhaps a couple of new species will evolve but as long as they pop up slower than we can count them, should be ok.

I think the problem is all of the tiny ecosystems all over the world. There are species of frogs that have only been found in a certain cave, etc. How many of those systems lie in places like the bottom of the ocean? Does anyone think we will have the bottom of the ocean explored to the kind of detail needed to search for worms in the next 25 years?

--
Lord, bless my users that they may stop being such fucking idiots!!

PETA would approve by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-12 17:22 · Score: 5, Funny

People for the Eating of Tasty Animals that is.

Hrm. by IcebergSlim · 2003-01-12 17:23 · Score: 5, Funny

So they finally got too bored with trying to cure cancer?

Not as easy as it sounds. by Arcaeris · 2003-01-12 17:26 · Score: 5, Informative

This will be a monumental undertaking. The current rate of discovery is a mere 10,000 a year. With an estimated 100 milion species, it'd take, well, forever.

Animals won't be so bad. We figure we have a good knowledge of 10-15% of the animal species out there. It's only so long before we have them all. 25 years is a pretty long time for that.

However, we only have catalogued something like .1% of all estimated species of microorganisms out there. Finding, isolating, and cataloging all of the microorganisms will take us much longer than animals simply because they're so tiny. This probably will take much longer than 25 years.

Hell, even if we had them all, we'd never know what makes these species special and significant. The most important parts of species discovery could be lost in the mad rush.

Not to mention:
"Instead of the time-consuming present system of comparing new discoveries with museum species, there will be a worldwide web-based database."

The issues of hacking/cracking, stability, reliability, and verification all boggle the mind. There's no way we'd be able to be sure.

I think this guy is just trying to get publicity behind the idea that we should speed things up. Like a rallying war cry for the science nerd community.

Re:Not as easy as it sounds. by the+gnat · 2003-01-12 17:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

The current rate of discovery is a mere 10,000 a year. With an estimated 100 milion species, it'd take, well, forever.

I think the idea is to identify species based on a genomic fingerprint- the usual marker is actually the sequence of 16S RNA (part of the ribosome). They simply collect as many samples as possible and feed them into the sequencer, and then use computers to determine the relationships.

At least that's what I assume from the article. I don't really think this is worthwhile, because it's easy for two organisms to be nearly identical on the sequence level and still be non-mating. You could have a single polymorphism be the only thing separating two species simply because of change in color, metabolism, etc., coupled with reproductive isolation. In particular, 16S RNA is used for large-scale cladistics because it changes relatively little over time, but this means that the difference between an Amazonian Spotted Yellow Frog and an Amazonian Spotted Green Frog may be nil at that level.

If they're looking at entire genomes, on the other hand, the technology simply won't be powerful enough for some time, particularly if they run into weird or huge genomes. Our genome is small compared to some of the projects underway, and the problem with everything on that scale is figuring out the damn repeats.

Count every species? by kfg · 2003-01-12 17:26 · Score: 3, Interesting

We can't even get to where most species *are* yet.

And while I agree that taxonomy is an important part of biological science, cataloging life isn't the *point* of taxonomy. It might be rather more to the point to *preserve* these species, or at least their DNA (male and female, and put them, into the ark. Riiiiight)

Honestly, I *do* understand what they're trying to do here, but it has an odd, and rather pathetic, feeling of pointlessness to it.

KFG

Nice idea, but... by Arethan · 2003-01-12 17:27 · Score: 5, Interesting

Why don't they use this opportunity to create a large searchable database of every species while they are at it.

They could include information such as name, ncientific name (the latin? stuff), physical Description, a few photographs of male and female specimins, eating preferences, defense mechanisms, known locations of presence, and other various notes.

When it comes to the carnavores, you could make entries in their diet link to the victims' records.

Then just make it searchable. Filterable by geographical area, species, keywords, etc. Very powerful. Then all you need is to make it publically available. Read-only of course.

All species is defunct...and this is a dupe by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-12 17:34 · Score: 4, Informative

At a national meeting I attendent before Christmas we learned that the All Species Foundation is for all intents and purposes defunct, with only a small governing board still existing (this from a board member). The whole project depended on philanthropy from Dot Com millionaires (the effort led in part by Kevin Kelly (sp?)), when the boom when down the tube so did the dream. There are still efforts to name all species and many posters here will mention the problems associated with this. Needless to say it won't happen in 22 years.

P.S. this is a dupe of an earlier slashdot article, on which I ranted on the difficulty of the whole deal...

(Goes back to describing species...)

Grey areas... by trotski · 2003-01-12 17:38 · Score: 5, Interesting

Hmmmm I suppose one of the major problems in this undertaking to attempting to solve "grey areas", IE what is a different species and what it not.

A case in point is the Vancouver Island Marmot. This highly endangered animal is concidered a seperate species than the regular rocky mountain marmot. Even though the only major difference between the two is that the Vancouver island marmot has a patch on it's nose.

Compare this to the difference in animals of the same species. A dalmation and a bulldog are concidered to be the same species of animal, even though they are vastly different in apperence and behavior.

There are just examples of the thousands of grey areas the exist between species. So one must ask, how specific are they getting, what in these scientists eyes is a seperate species and what is simply a different race.

By setting the standard for what is a species high, the task of discovering every species becomes much easier than if the bar was set lower.

--

"Entropy is the bad-guy, and he is everywhere"

Re:Grey areas... by the+gnat · 2003-01-12 18:05 · Score: 5, Informative

Great point. The best distinction that I've seen is simply that of "reproductive isolation", rather than phenotype. It's possible for two different species to mate and bear fertile offspring; however, they almost always don't. External phenotype on the other hand is a very poor marker of speciation.

These nuances are almost always missed in evolution vs. creation debates. An population of organisms does not suddenly *poof* become a new species. There's no good way to measure speciation; it's a combination of environmental and genetic factors that builds up over time.

The best book I've read on this is "The Diversity of Life" by Edward O. Wilson; it has a very clear and non-technical description of exactly how speciation occurs, and is very relevant to this article.

Surname project funding by Baldrson · 2003-01-12 17:41 · Score: 3, Interesting

I suggested this to E. O. Wilson about 12 years ago:

The various surname projects could be sold the right to name a species after their family as a kind of tribal totem. The ecological range of every species occupying a given area could then contribute to the purchase of that land area and stock holdings by various surname groups could control the land area. Areas with naturally higher biodiversity would have a lot more surname sales and therefore more tribal totems resident. This would be a good way to get people to identify their familial bloodlines with various species that would statistically favor preservation of high-biodiversity areas.

At the time few of the surname projects that now exist on the internet were had come into existence. I think there is a lot more support for this sort of genealogical identity these days and totems may be a real commodity to sell in preservation of biodiversity.

--
Seastead this.

Re:skeptical by MillionthMonkey · 2003-01-12 17:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

Not going to happen. They would first have to come up with an adequate universal definition of a species, and they haven't done that in the last 150 years (Darwin addressed this issue).

The lack of a definition for "species" is a problem for humans who like definitions, not for nature, which doesn't care if things become hard to define.
Some things, like pornography and race, are just not easily definable. Usually people use the standard of recognition (i.e. "I know it when I see it") which works well enough for most purposes.

Forget evolution! Beware taxonomists! by xixax · 2003-01-12 17:53 · Score: 3, Informative

Taxonomists will be renaming and reclassifying species at a greater rate than anyone can discover and name them.

Xix.

--
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"

I'm a bit worried by long_john_stewart_mi · 2003-01-12 18:02 · Score: 3, Funny

I'm a bit worried about this idea. I thought the search was over the day they discovered Spam.

--
...oOOo..'(_)'..oOOo...

Re:Good freakin' luck by Simon+Field · 2003-01-12 18:04 · Score: 5, Interesting

Single cell analysis is fairly routine. You isolate a single cell, culture it, and analyze the colony.

But doing what you thought I was talking about is still not impossible -- amplifying the DNA of a single cell using the polymerase chain reaction, and fingerprinting what you get.

As for cheap DNA fingerprinting, we're close already. You may be thinking of a complete sequencer, where every base is accounted for. But a fingerprinter is just some enzymes to cut up the DNA in the right places, and some electrophoresis to separate the resulting fragments by molecular weight. This can be automated inexpensively if there is a big enough market for it. The forensic process has to be good enough to hold up in court. The species finder does not, as the results will have to be reproduced anyway, and a good hit on a new species would be enough to send the sample to a lab with better equipment.

--

Free book: Science Toys You Can Make

Re:skeptical by Kotetsu · 2003-01-12 18:05 · Score: 3, Interesting

It doesn't work because there are known counterexamples.Orchids come to mind first off. Almost any orchid you can purchase at a greenhouse is a hybrid. They even produce fertile offspring with crosses from different genera.

Here is a list of genera, including what they call them when they are intergenus crosses (and just for the letter "A"). If you take the genus "Allenara", it is a hybrid of the naturally occuring genera Cattleya, Diacrium, Epidendrum, and Laelia. You get a cross of four genera by making two hybrids (say Cattleya x Diacrium and Epidendrum x Laelia) and then crossing the two hybrids.

Maybe that definition will work for most things, but it's a mystery to me how they decide that this orchid is a different (or the same) species from that one, much less that they should be in different genera.

--

"Bite me, it's fun!" - Crowe T. Robot

All Species Foundation by webmaven · 2003-01-12 18:15 · Score: 4, Informative

This is the All Species Foundation, Kevin Kelly's latest brainchild.

Kevin Kelly basically figured out how to give away a billion dollars.

--
The real Webmaven is user ID 27463. I don't rate an imposter, because my ID is such a lame-ass high number.

very achievable by Trailer+Trash · 2003-01-12 18:22 · Score: 3, Interesting

Seems that with our current rate of extinction it should be pretty easy. Hell, there may be no work to do; maybe all the ones tha we don't know about will be dead in 25 years anyway.

MDC

--
Do you have ESP?

Sure. by Suppafly · 2003-01-12 18:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

A hugely ambitious project to find and name every species on Earth within the next 25 years has been launched by scientists.

Haven't they been doing that for the last couple of hundred years? What makes them think the can do it in 25 when a few hundred years of science has just barely scrapped the surface.

Proving a negative... by jtdubs · 2003-01-12 18:35 · Score: 4, Funny

Wow, I'm glad scientists have finally found a way around that pesky problem of not being able to prove negatives.

Now we can finally prove that:

a) There does not exist a species that we haven't found.
b) God does not exist.

These scientists seem to be morons if the slashdot headline is accurate (that'll be the day). An ambitious undertaking would have been to catalog 10x as many species next year as most years, and to continue doing so until we think we have them all. An impossible undertaking is to show that we haven't missed any in the process.

Justin Dubs

Must not apply to microbes... by Tuxinatorium · 2003-01-12 18:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

There are so many varieties and they evolve so quickly, that it would be impossible to catalog all of them because there are constantly new species being made. Besides, the distinction between divergent strains of a species and different but related species is completely arbitrary on that scale, because they don't have sexual reproduction. In mammals, the ability to produce fertile offspring generally draws the boundaries between species.

--
Repeal the DMCA!

This seems impossible! by antdude · 2003-01-12 19:38 · Score: 3, Interesting

Scientists are still finding new species of ants frequently. The last number was 11,006 according to Antbase.

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).

Re:skeptical by Bicoid · 2003-01-12 19:43 · Score: 5, Informative

Dingos can mate with dogs and produce fertile offspring. Dogs can mate with wolves and procuce fertile offspring. However, Dingos cannot mate with wolves and still produce fertile offspring.

In othe words, your definition is flawed because it assumes that species are static, whereas they REALLY are always in the process of splitting into multiple species. Plus, there's that time thing. A species not only has to be able to be classified solidly in today's environment, but it also needs to have a set classification that spans time so that we can deal with paleontological species as well. And since you can't mate two Tyrannosaurus skeletons and see if they produce viable offspring...well, I'm sure you get the point.

--
If not all sentients are human, couldn't it be possible that not all humans are sentient either?

Anthropology by ndogg · 2003-01-12 20:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

They should start asking the indiginous people of the various places they go to about the animals they encounter, especially if they are nomadic. The folklore, myths, traditions, stories, etc. often serve purposes beyond that of creating a basis for religion. Many of them have been created to help them survive the environment they live in. Not only that, but they also seem to allow to live within these environments without destroying them. This is something anthropologists have known for some time now. Western biologists often have the bad habit of dismissing these things, particularly if they are tribal, under the misconceived notion that they are "primitive" and could not possibly understand the plants and animals around them, when in fact it's their vast amounts of knowledge of the plants and animals around them that allows them to survive.

--
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"

Every species in 2028? by C+A+S+S+I+E+L · 2003-01-13 00:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

Here's an exhaustive list of every species which will be alive on the planet in 2028:

1. Man.

Re:Every species in 2028? by Idarubicin · 2003-01-13 03:52 · Score: 5, Funny

But what will we eat?
Oh.
Ew.

--
~Idarubicin

convergeance is a wonderful thing by corvi42 · 2003-01-13 04:43 · Score: 3, Funny

Well if species keep disappearing at a high rate, and researchers keep discovering new ones at a moderately slow rate - then eventually these two should converge at some point.

So it follows that we should kill off more species to help these scientists in their noble task. ( amazing what absurd things can be done with pure logic )

--

There are a thousand forms of subversion, but few can equal the convenience and immediacy of a cream pie -Noel Godin

44 of 276 comments (clear)